You forgot to mention Iran’s developing nuclear capacity. www.cdi.org/russia/211-6.cfm+tehran+%22nuclear+capability%22+russia&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] that is being aided by the russians. NORTH KOREA AND CHINA are aiding Irans missile technology efforts.
As someone who grew up on the Cold War propaganda, seeing the names Russia, China, North Korea and Iran together in the same context with the words aiding, nuclear capability and missile technology when I’m not reading a John Birch tract affects me in visceral ways.
Apology accepted, but I’d rather see some intelligent policies than intelligent people. It’s going to cost us close to 40 Billion just to prevent Turkey and Israel from screwing us on this Iraq adventure. Wait a minute, that’s still a screw job. Where the hell’s the intelligent diplomacy that’d make them beg us for a piece of the action ?
And Duckster, if drilling is about to commence in ANWR, I haven’t heard about it. What say you?
Like John Ashcroft?
Well, since it seems that Democrats are the good guys, I’ll quote one.
[ul]
[sup]I’ve seen worse times, worse job markets, worse worries about nuclear annihilation. In the 60’s the DOW almost hit 1000 then dropped to at least 400. It was still only 700 in the early 80’s. If you think France is giving us fits, you should have been around for de Gaulle. Shit you ain’t seen nothing yet. David Simmons can tell you about the depression better than I can because it made an impression on everyone in it. Read FDR’s words again, because he said them during the heart of the depression.[/sup][/ul]
Or the anti-diplomat, Rumsfeld? Wherever he goes, you lose an ally.
I agree with you that it is a bit overwhelming when someone decides to yank the lid off the pot that we have only been able to smell the past fifteen years.
Bush can back off on Iraq until the economy recovers, sure. But then again, whenever war seems eminent the economy tanks anyways so we should just ignore them indeffinately. let the insepctors resume without the threat of war until the are eventually denied access here and there until they give up and come home like last time. We can deal with the catch 22 you see me getting at when it comes up. One thing at a time.
He can ignore NK’s weapons violations. Continue to pay them off while they amass more nuclear weapons. Maybe sell a couple. But hey, one thing at a time. We can deal with that when it comes up.
He can focus on the economy and war on terror by cutting the tax cuts and focussing on arresting terrorists when they come up. Build up homeland security without taking away our visitors civil liberties and pay for it all with the future tax cuts he renegged on. We all know the economy is boosted when the money is spent by he government and not by the people. The next attack may be with wmd obtained from a rougue state. After all, the US has the economy to worry about, not the proliferation of WMD in the wrong hands. But one thing at a time. We will deal with that when it comes up.
I am not saying that dealing with everything at once is the best solution either. But what do we ignore? Would you, as a soldier, rather face a North Korea with even more nukes? Would you rather face an iraq without limitations of his arsenal? Remember, if we had went in in '98 do you think his WMD would have been less or more? I am sure you are not saying that we are doing too much in rgards to terrorist ceels and think we should do more. I agree. But what more? Do we invade Pakistan because they will not let our trrops in their country to search for Ossama? Do we ask nicely if Saddam woould kindly turn over the known terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda in his northern region? Hope that they are not able to get WMD for their next attack so that we don’t “cheese” anyone off?
It is alot on our plate. But it was given to us, we didn’t ask for it. And I have not heard a viable alternative on what to do with it accept ignore it. I don;t think we can deal with it later either. the it would just be worse.
Whether it’s left over from Clinton, or the first Bush, or Reagan or Carter or Calvin Coolidge is immaterial. It is now GW’s job to fix it as best he can, not make it worse.
I remember well a conversation between a Navy Admiral and a Captain Program Manager that took place in my presence. The Admiral was asking the Program Manager about problems with the program and the latter began, “Well, Admiral, when I took over this job …” That was as far as he got because the Admiral said, “Don’t blame your predecessor. It’s your job now. Tell me what you are doing to fix it.”
I think this applies to such cases as GW’s performance to date.
Go on, admit it, you expect that nose wiggle thing I was talking about don’t you. From your quote, Powell sounds like he is on the job. And what appology would that be?
I havn’t heard GW blame any of this on Clinton. And can you tell me what he is not doing to fix it? Besides ignoring it?
My point was that the same sky was cracked when Clinton was in office, he just put some duct tape on it and we coasted on. You tell me what Clinton did to fix it, and you tell me what Bush didn’t do. You assertin is that he is making it worse by facing it. Ok, prove it, what should he do?
No, but the gist of your post was that you do.
This assumes that Hussein is really the global menace that is claimed. He’s a badass, but an overriding menace that requires the action that GW wants to take? That remains to be proved.
And, of course, the fact that I don’t have an answer is immaterial. I don’t have answers to a lot of problems. That doesn’t prove that the methods currently be used to solve those problems are the best ones, or the only ones, or are even any good.
Since when is the job of the America president to micromanage the world? I’m all for not dealing with it. If the world is so bad, let someone else deal with it. Let China take out Saddam Hussain’s threat to humanity. Let the EU invade North Korea. I mean all these things have to be taken care of, right? You’d think eventually someone besides the United States would notice. If the world is just gonna get itself tied up in knots, why is it suddenly up to America to rearrange things? Screw 'em. The American President has enough American Presidenting to do before he starts “dealing” with the internal and regional problems of every other damn country on Earth.
Hehehe. I can see the value in your argument, though. Clinton didn’t do much at all in the way of massive and decisive foreign action (perhaps he was too busy getting those people in the Middle East to shake hands to invade them). So just about any action we take against any country is a case of “Clinton didn’t do anything about it.” I’m sure if we decided to take over Belgium, we’d have lines of people saying nodding their heads and saying “Yup. Clinton certainly didn’t stop those Belgiums. He just let them insolently do whatever they wanted. Thank God Bush isn’t gonna pass the burden of Belgium to anyone else”. Brilliant!
You were the one who invited people who don’t like the current state of affairs to leave the country. Conservatives do that a lot. My feeling is, YOU get the hell out instead. I’m staying and trying to fix things. Got a problem with that? Deal.
Saen, while I appreciate your efforts to defend this Administration, you are ignoring the most alarming and signature trend which it continues to propagate.
Bait and switch. Bush most definitely is wiggling his nose and making problems go away.
Consider for example the enormous corporate fraud perpetrated by Enron and Worldcom. Bush thundered for legislation which allows for the prosecution of those responsible and prevent future accounting manipulation. Then, when Congress finally passed it, the Bush Administration immediately began to undermine the legislation by denying certain protections to corporate whistleblowers. Bait and switch.
In January, 2002, Bush visited a Portland, Oregon, job training center. In his 2002 State of the Union speech, Bush stressed that one of America’s most important objectives is the creation of new jobs. Then, two weeks later, his '03 budget proposal recommended slashing the budget for job training by $545 million, including slashing the budget of the very center he visited. Bait and switch.
And remember this famous line? “I have no plans on my desk for the invasion of Iraq. I’m telling the truth!” But as soon as the mid-term elections heated up only a few months later, where did Enron and Worldcom go? Where did the jobs go? Where did Osama go? Under Saddam Hussein’s dress.
That blatantly political move had implications which are so vast they cannot even be calculated. Congress spent so much time debating a theoretical attack on Iraq that for the first time in my living memory they failed to pass eleven out of thirteen appropriations bills. For almost five months–until yesterday, in fact–the federal government has been subsisting at FY02 approprations levels and delaying the start of new projects, which has almost certainly contributed to the downward spiral of the economy. It will personally affect virtually all Americans.
These sorts of things are just the tip of the iceberg. This Administration is basing its very existence upon the principles of nondisclosure and prevarication. It’s worse than lying simply to avoid being caught, for which Bush’s predecessor is rightly criticized. It’s deception. Deception of the American people.
You can defend the Bush Administration all you like, Saen, but I guarantee that you don’t know what the Bush Administration is actually doing. You are defending policies which are not announced, about which we, the American people are not consulted. You are implicitly defending your right to trust a leader whom we know deceives us for the gain of… whom?
Smallmouth bass have what is known as a “strike zone,” an area twelve inches in front of its nose within which it will snap at anything at all. The Bush Administration is guilty of recognizing that average American people have the exact same political sense, and they are using it to keep them on the line while they lower our quality of life, undermine our civil liberties, and shift the tax burden onto our shoulders. Unless you are an extremely wealthy caucasian male, you’re one of the fish, not one of the anglers.
Please, for the love of God, America: don’t take the bait next time.
Umm, no I’m not. I am, however, making the case that ignoring the problems and innaction makes the problems worse. As Clinton did. You seem to be demanding that Bush “fix” the problems, yet claim his actions are making matters worse. I have asked you what he should be doing better to fix the problems. If you do not have a better method, I do not see where you should get any credibility by just jumping up and down, stamping your feet, and going on that he is doing it wrong. It does not make you right just by repeating it. It doesn’t make you wrong either, except for the fact that your lack of constructive criticism gives me nothing to judge your assertion of the right or wrong way.
This assumes that the opinions of the world, accept Saddam’s, that an armed Saddam is a menace and must be stopped is up for debate. Wich it is not. You can have the opinion that a Saddam with WMD is not a menace, I will not argue with that. But if that is your opinion then state it so that we do not go around in circles.
Those opinions have been proved with about eighteen resolutions with the wording that Saddam must dissarm and the unanimous last one that states “or face very severe consequences”. The only alternative that I have heard to Bush’s war is more inspectors. Yet inspectors was never the opinion stated by the SC of the correct way to dissarm Saddam. The correct way in the resolution was overwhelmingly stated as compliance, and willingness to dissarm by Iraq. Now, that willingness is what is yet to be proved. As a matter of fact, it has been disproved by the inspectors themselves. Wich is what I submit the inspectors job is. More inspectors to say he is not complying is not the answer. The Security Counsel said that “very severe consequences” are the answer in the light of Iraq’s unwillingness to dissarm. You can dissagree with that, but state that case if you do so.
Read 1441 if you need “proof” of my assertions.
So your comeback to my stating that ignoring the problems does not make them go away is stating that we should just ignore them? That is brilliant.
In the light that the EU and China is willing to ignore them, well, that’s not our problem. Especially since we abdicate any responsibility to world peace. I agree. We should start with acknowledging the irrelevence of of the UN when it comes to the US’s priorities. Wich is “American Presidenting” however even sven wants to define it.
The Belgium arguement is a red herring and strawman and will not recognise it no further.
thanks again. And how, praytell, are “YOU” trying to fix things? Besides asserting that the US is tired of peace and prosperity?
Yes. He acts as a born again Christian fighting evil. There are no political compromises in his fundamentalist Christian world of “for us or against us.” e.g. his Middle East policy is fighting evil and supporting Israel unconditionally.
Unlike a lot of people on the extremes of the left and right, I believe in the opinions of the voters.
While GW didn’t get a majority of votes, he did win the presidency away from the opposite party during good economic times.
Also during the mid-term elections the Republicans actually gained seats, defeating the trend of what usually happens.
If you think the country was duped twice, then maybe you don’t think very highly of the judgment of common voters.
-k
Ah, the wag the dog theory. While I agree it seems that Bush could be more forthcomming and proactive in the corporate scandal phenomenon that materialised after he came in office, I really don’t concern myself that much with it. Didn’t when it was headline news. Wanna know why? Because it does not effect my life, and my friends an family, the way the terrorists and proliferation of WMD does in example of 9-11. But of course, 9-11 is just bait. And Bush is exacerbating the threat by not focusing on corporate fraud more.
Keeping your 401k safe may be more important to you than keeping me or the ones I love safe. But that would be your priorities wouldn’t it? Not mine, nor what I expect my president to “bait” me with.